{ mograph } THAT& #39;S IT – FINALLY!

I& #39;ve been searching for years for a simple way to describe the oh-so-difficult to define line between Motion Design and "Animation".

That& #39;s it – hot dang @darthcasey, you cracked the code. https://twitter.com/TheGreatSzalam/status/1384967419467337729">https://twitter.com/TheGreatS...

Most mographers cant sling keys to get what they need in a predictable/efficient way bc they don& #39;t have the animation experience and language – prob bc they never get the time to really chew on it.

And "animators" usually only have KEYS to solve every problem, unlike mographers.

This is a generalization – there are amazing motion designers that can animate like wizards and "animators" that work miracles with parametric tools or mocap BUT on the whole, motion designers don& #39;t get the time to build a sensitivity to animation, particularly character work...

Motion designers have to go wide and shallow on almost every possible tool and technique under the sun, esp at the beginning of their careers – while "animators" get to focus & work thru the 3 stages of animation: mechanics, acting, and then synthesis of the two into "style".

Maybe that changes as tools for motion design are democratized/robust & access to good teachers is available – but I see it trending more towards higher visual fidelity rather than better & more varied styles of MOTION.

Which for an industry with it in the name, its kinda weird?

Good animation, subtle timing and pacing – along with stylized approaches to movement (think SPIDER-VERSE), let alone ACTING (even with simple shapes) is ALWAYS going to be difficult.

No amount of Rokoko suits or Mixamo clips or faster GPU grunt is going to make that easier.